On March 6, 2018, the U.S.-based Fraen Corporation applied to the U.S. International Trade Commission （ITC） to accuse 6 Chinese enterprises including Guangzhou Hao Yang Electronic Co., Ltd. of infringing its U.S. patents, violating Section 337, Tariff Act of 1930 and requested ITC to release either general exclusion orders or limited exclusion orders as well as cease/desist orders.

As claimed by Fraen, 6 Chinese enterprises including Hao Yang had infringed its U.S. patents US.9411083 and US.9772499, violating Section 337, and requested ITC to release either general exclusion orders or limited exclusion orders as well as cease/desist orders, which involved to excluding the infringing LED lighting devices and assemblies to enter U.S. market, imposing guarantee measures on import of infringing LED lighting devices and assemblies in 60 days of Presidential review period to prevent further damage in the U.S. market for Fraen; releasing cease and desist orders, to stop accused enterprises in marketing, distribution, sale, offer for sale and storage for distribution, or moving or carrying infringing LED lighting devices or assemblies into the U.S. in other ways.

After receiving the complaint, Hao Yang established a joint task force including its legal, patent, market, technical and marketing staffs, quickly launched a profound analysis on the relevant patents and products, searched relevant patents of similar products and formed a specific and workable report. In response to the Fraen complaint, Hao Yang answered that its Chinese patents were obtained through self-reliant innovation and development, and successfully proved the fact of independent R&D and prior use of relevant technology in its defense.

Meanwhile, Hao Yang raised over 100 questions to Fraen on its patents and complaint. Fraen asked for deferred response. Later, Hao Yang proved independent R&D and prior use at the meetings of opposing attorneys. Fraen then filed a motion to withdraw its complaint against Hao Yang without condition. Accordingly, ITC issued the final decision to cease its 337 investigation against Hao Yang.（by Zhang Binbin）

（Editor Li Xingyi）

（All contents of this newspaper may not be reproduced or used without express permission）